Why more people choose D300 over 40D as I can see in the review the pic quality/sharpness of D300 are bettered by A700. EOS 40D images also very sharp and has a good colour saturation. Beside screen, shooting speed, extra 2mp etc..which is the best if only looking for great/sharp pic...

The Nikon D300 is a camera that is just solid performer it has really good ergonomics and image quality, the performance and handling is also really great. In the photographic world you get what you pay for, so the more you pay for a Nikon, you can expect better results!

Why more people choose D300 over 40D as I can see in the review the pic quality/sharpness of D300 are bettered by A700.

Re: Picture quality between D300 and Sony A700: Picture quality is subjective. For some, sharpness is primordial; for others it might be the way colors are rendered, or the way that the camera allows them to be. Also, picture quality is a result of how easy it was to take that picture in the first place. Here, ergonomics and ease of use would come into play. In other words, picture quality would be hard to qualify because everyone looks for different things in a picture.

Re: Sharpness difference between pics taken with D300 and A700: two factors here:
1. The camera. I can assure you that you can get tack sharp pictures with the D300. The default setting might not please everyone - how can it? - but you can easily boost sharpness within the D300 functions. Reviews normally test cameras with their default settings to even out the playing field for comparison-purposes, so if camera's default settings are more conservatively set than another camera, then you will get differing results. I think you should consider what you can actually do with the settings of the camera, i.e. whether you can get the sharpness you are after.
2. The lens. the lens plays a huge factor in the sharpness of a picture. Some people sometimes buy a particular brand of camera because said brand has an amazing lens that no other has. For instance, the new Nikon 14-24mm, albeit expensive and not fully tested yet, is said to be absolutely awesome in its sharpness across the focal range. This is an important point, because - unless you're dealing with a non-zoom lens (called a "prime" lens), say, a 50mm f2.8 lens - then you will find that a lens' performance will vary depending at which aperture setting you are testing it. A lens might be very sharp at f5.6-8.0, but might be compromised at its extremes. Besides sharpness (or resolution), there are also other factors that will come into play, such as darkening of corners at some aperture settings (called "vignetting") or other unwanted artifacts such as CA aberrations that might compromise the overall picture quality. To come back to my example of the Nikon 14-24mm, it looks like it's an amazing lens in the way that it's sharp across most of its aperture range and is relatively distortion-free.

Thus, when you are asking whether you can get sharp pictures with the D300, or whether the Canon 40D or Sony A700 would be better, I would say that all three are capable of taking sharp pictures. You just have to tweak the camera's settings to your liking, and use a sharp lens. for example, setting the D300's controls to additional sharpening, and with a 14-24mm, for example, you would probably be quite blown away (read an early test of the 14-24mm here, if you're interested: http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/nikon_14_24mm_1/nikon14_24mm_a.html). The same probably applies to Canon (although I'm not sure which lens exactly would be the sharpest. A great place to have a look at is on this site under the "Lenses" tab, as well as here: http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/index.html).

Lens-wise, I think that Canon and Nikon would have an advantage of the Sony, which has a more limited range of lenses at this point in time. However, it's really about which manufacturer has the lenses that YOU want. If you're looking for sharpness, than, as I said, the Nikon 14-24mm seems great. I think Canon has a similarly-sharp lens in that focal range, but I'm not sure which one exactly it is. As far as other brands go, I don't claim to have enough knowledge, so if others want to chime in on this one?... The point is that most manufacturers will have good lenses, but a few of them will have some outstanding (and expensive!) ones. They might, or might not, be the lenses you are after, though. For example, the Nikon 14-24mm might be great, but what if you're after a lens with a different zoom range? Maybe another manufacturer has exactly what you're after.

So, unfortunately, there is no easy and straight answer to your question as to which camera model to get in order to be able to take great/sharp pictures. Personally, I would stay with either Canon or Nikon, simply because lenses play such a huge part in the photo-taking equation, and both Canon and Nikon have not only a wide range of lenses (wider range than Sony) but also come out regularly with new ones as well, so there seems to be more supply with those two.
I think that both the 40D and the D300 are great cameras, and both will be able to give you great/sharp pictures. So look at which one feels better to you, and which one falls within your budget - the Canon 40D being cheaper by a comfortable margin. Then, look a their lenses and see whether one manufacturer has a lens in the range you're after, which gets good reviews for the features you're after (sharpness, for example).

A final word about sharpness. I am a beginner. I just did a thorough research in order to get myself tools that are as good and future-proof as possible for my investment, so I look for sharpness as well. However, as I progress, I wonder sometimes about whether sharpness is that important... Certainly, for some types of pictures, sharpness is a real standout feature. Just look at the pictures of one of this forum's member - Zorro - on the Flikr website where he has his pictures posted. But I also think back at the pictures that I have seen over time, and which have actually made me stop doing whatever I was doing a the time, because I just had to look, and look again, at them. Some of those black&whites 1930s Paris scenes that seem to exist all over the word in all cafés would be a prime example! Was I looking a them, and did I think they were great because they were the sharpest? Nope. Artistic composition, colors, whatever tickles your bone, but sure wasn't sharpness...So, sharpness - or, more correctly, the pursuit of it - might be a "disease" affecting beginners (like me), those who put more emphasis on technicality over maybe more relevant factors. A bit of honest mea culpa and something to think about...

I get the clear picture now and would appreciate if anyone could suggest which lens to go for 40D which in the same range of sharpness like nikon 14-24mm. Since Canon is far more cheaper I would consider that but D300 definitely in my top list if the differences worth the money and I would keep on looking for an update from D300 user like you.

300D worth it over the 40D?...I used to have a 40D. It's a great camera, no doubt about it, and if you got it, you would not be disappointed. Personally, I think it would be between those two anyway. I really don't think it's an easy decision. The hard differences might not weigh so much in favour of the D300. This is my take about it, for what it's worth. Some of the differences that I believe make the D300 worthwhile to me:

- The autofocusing system. It's got what is called a 3-D tracking system. Basically, it follows and focuses on your subject on the screen as long as it's within the 9, 21 or 51 (!) focus points. In reality, it means that you have more chances of being focused on a moving subject. Secondly, it has what Nikon calls a Scene Recognition in Auto mode. What this means is that you might want to focus on a person against a background that could comprise other auto-focusing alternatives, but the system gets it right most of the time. Reports on the net are quite in awe about this; somehow, it just works. In short, I feel that the focusing system of the D300 is something special, and above the 40D's. In my short time since I've had the D300 - a couple of days only - it certainly locked focus and kept it on subjects that previously I would have had to manage myself. But it's only been a short while, so further testing is required to fully confirm this for myself, despite the buzz.

- Fine tuning of lens' auto-focus. Some lenses might focus slightly behind or in front of the subject. Within the D300, you can actually correct this for 9 lenses, and then store that correction. In short, sharper images or, at least, the option to achieve it if your lens might need correcting. Having said that, I've never heard anyone complaining about the Canon's lack of sharpness... I certainly did not feel that it was an issue when I had it, on the contrary. Sharp camera, sharp lens (40D +24-105mm). With the D300, I haven't had a chance yet to fine-tune my 18-200mm zoom, so we'll see, but it's certainly sharp, within its limits, of course.

- Hi definition back lcd screen. It makes looking at your pictures something else. Not an essential feature - granted - and not one warranting the price difference, but nice nevertheless.

- Feels good holding and using it. Totally a personal preference, but I like handling the D300 better than the 40D, which, to me, felt bulkier, although it might not be in real terms. In short, I like using it.

As far as lenses are concerned: So, you decided you want to go wide-angle (a la Nikon 14-24mm) or you're after a lens that is as sharp as this one is, but for Canon? The Canon 24-70mm f2.8 is one of Canon's classics, check it out: http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses ... /index.htm

I used to have the 24-105 L F4 and it was great too. Both are "L" lenses - top of the line. Between the two, the 24-70mm is perhaps the more classic one. However, to the 24-105mm's advantage, it has the vibration reduction built-in ("IS" in Canon-speak) whereas the 24-70mm does not. However, it's not critical at such short zoom range.

Having said that, it still looks like the Nikon 14-24mm might be something really special as far as image quality is concerned. However, you would have to consider whether that particular zoom range might suit you. It's a great range for a full-frame sensor like the Nikon D3's but less attractive on a smaller sensor such as the D300's. For example, the Sigma 10-20mm might be a better idea. Look for a test done on it in this forum and do some searches on the net for "Sigma 10-20mm test". And it's also available for the Canon.

In the end, your best bet would be to go to a shop and handle both the D300 and the 40D, and see which one "resonates" with you. But either are great.

300D worth it over the 40D?...I used to have a 40D. It's a great camera, no doubt about it, and if you got it, you would not be disappointed. Personally, I think it would be between those two anyway. I really don't think it's an easy decision. The hard differences might not weigh so much in favour of the D300. This is my take about it, for what it's worth. Some of the differences that I believe make the D300 worthwhile to me:

- The autofocusing system. It's got what is called a 3-D tracking system. Basically, it follows and focuses on your subject on the screen as long as it's within the 9, 21 or 51 (!) focus points. In reality, it means that you have more chances of being focused on a moving subject. Secondly, it has what Nikon calls a Scene Recognition in Auto mode. What this means is that you might want to focus on a person against a background that could comprise other auto-focusing alternatives, but the system gets it right most of the time. Reports on the net are quite in awe about this; somehow, it just works. In short, I feel that the focusing system of the D300 is something special, and above the 40D's. In my short time since I've had the D300 - a couple of days only - it certainly locked focus and kept it on subjects that previously I would have had to manage myself. But it's only been a short while, so further testing is required to fully confirm this for myself, despite the buzz.

- Fine tuning of lens' auto-focus. Some lenses might focus slightly behind or in front of the subject. Within the D300, you can actually correct this for 9 lenses, and then store that correction. In short, sharper images or, at least, the option to achieve it if your lens might need correcting. Having said that, I've never heard anyone complaining about the Canon's lack of sharpness... I certainly did not feel that it was an issue when I had it, on the contrary. Sharp camera, sharp lens (40D +24-105mm). With the D300, I haven't had a chance yet to fine-tune my 18-200mm zoom, so we'll see, but it's certainly sharp, within its limits, of course.

- Hi definition back lcd screen. It makes looking at your pictures something else. Not an essential feature - granted - and not one warranting the price difference, but nice nevertheless.

- Feels good holding and using it. Totally a personal preference, but I like handling the D300 better than the 40D, which, to me, felt bulkier, although it might not be in real terms. In short, I like using it.

As far as lenses are concerned: So, you decided you want to go wide-angle (a la Nikon 14-24mm) or you're after a lens that is as sharp as this one is, but for Canon? The Canon 24-70mm f2.8 is one of Canon's classics, check it out: http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses ... /index.htm

I used to have the 24-105 L F4 and it was great too. Both are "L" lenses - top of the line. Between the two, the 24-70mm is perhaps the more classic one. However, to the 24-105mm's advantage, it has the vibration reduction built-in ("IS" in Canon-speak) whereas the 24-70mm does not. However, it's not critical at such short zoom range.

Having said that, it still looks like the Nikon 14-24mm might be something really special as far as image quality is concerned. However, you would have to consider whether that particular zoom range might suit you. It's a great range for a full-frame sensor like the Nikon D3's but less attractive on a smaller sensor such as the D300's. For example, the Sigma 10-20mm might be a better idea. Look for a test done on it in this forum and do some searches on the net for "Sigma 10-20mm test". And it's also available for the Canon.

In the end, your best bet would be to go to a shop and handle both the D300 and the 40D, and see which one "resonates" with you. But either are great.

Chromatic Aberrations (CAs) graph: the lower the bars, the better, and finally...

The Conclusion

If you can stretch your budget to a Canon "L" lens, you should definitely check them out. They are beautifully made and feel superb in use, in addition to be protected against the elements. They are the "Pro" range of Canon, and are optically first class.

When I had the 40D, I bought with it the 17-85 USM IS lens. It's a very popular choice, but I really disliked the way it worked because it felt..well, cheap. The focus ring felt like plastic-on-plastic grinding. I just didn't enjoy using it. At all. So I bought the 24-105 "L" lens. Although not as useful a zoom range as the 17-85 for a camera like the 40D, I enjoyed using it ten times more because it felt superb to use. I think it's a factor you should definitely consider - the pleasure to use a particular lens, to see whether it's an issue for you, or not. If I had to do it again, I would not buy the 24-105 (although a big deciding factor was the fact that it had Image Stabilisation, which not all "L" lenses do have), but I would definitely buy an "L" lens.